Considerations on seismic hazard disaggregation in terms of occurrence or exceedance in New Zealand
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5459/bnzsee.56.1.1-10Abstract
Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis (PSHA) is widely accepted as the most robust approach for evaluating the seismic hazard at a given site and provides the basis for seismic loads in most design codes. To obtain more detailed information on the specific earthquake scenarios contributing to the hazard at a site, it is common to include seismic hazard disaggregation results within a PSHA. This is mostly done in terms of exceedance of the intensity level of interest, but for many applications a disaggregation in terms of occurrence of the intensity level of interest is more appropriate. A number of researchers have examined the theoretical differences between the exceedance and occurrence approaches; however, few have provided extensive application examples. This paper therefore compares the approaches for 24 sites across New Zealand. It is shown that the two different approaches can result in moderate differences in the mean magnitudes and site-to-source distances, as well as differences in the relative contributions from different Tectonic Region Types. Whilst some weak trends are identified, it is concluded that generally it is not possible to know a priori whether the difference between occurrence or exceedance approaches would have a tangible impact on disaggregation results or the results of subsequent applications. It is therefore recommended that developers of seismic hazard analysis software and providers of seismic hazard data products make both approaches readily available.
References
Bazzurro P (1998). “Probabilistic Seismic Demand Analysis”. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA
Fox MJ, Stafford PJ and Sullivan TJ (2016). “Seismic hazard disaggregation in performance-based earthquake engineering”. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 45(5): 835-842. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2675 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2675
Baker JW, Bradley BA and Stafford PJ (2021) “Seismic Hazard and Risk Analysis”. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108425056 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108425056
Cornell CA (1968). “Engineering seismic risk analysis”. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 58(5): 1583-1606. https://doi.org/10.1785/BSSA0580051583 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1785/BSSA0580051583
Baker JW (2011). “Conditional mean spectrum: tool for ground motion selection”. Journal of Structural Engineering, 137(3): 322-331. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000215 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000215
Bradley BA (2010). “A generalized conditional intensity measure approach and holistic ground-motion selection”. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 39(12): 1321-1342. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.995 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.995
Standards New Zealand (2004). "NZS1170.5: Structural Design Actions. Part 5: Earthquake Actions ‐ New Zealand”. Standards New Zealand, Wellington, NZ. https://www.standards.govt.nz/sponsored-standards/building-standards/NZS1170-5
Bradley BA, Cubrinovski M and Wentz F (2022). “Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis of peak ground acceleration for major regional New Zealand locations”. Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, 55(1): 15-24. https://doi.org/10.5459/bnzsee.55.1.15-24 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5459/bnzsee.55.1.15-24
Stirling M, McVerry G, Gerstenberger M, Litchfield N, Van Dissen R, Berryman K, Barnes P, Wallace L, Villamor P, Langridge R, Lamarche G, Nodder S, Reyners M, Bradley B, Rhoades D, Smith W, Nicol A, Pettinga J, Clark K and Jacobs K (2012). “National seismic hazard model for New Zealand: 2010 update”. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 102(4): 1514–1542. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120110170 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1785/0120110170
Bradley BA (2013). “A New Zealand-specific pseudospectral acceleration ground-motion prediction equation for active shallow crustal earthquakes based on foreign models”. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 103(3): 1801–1822. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120120021 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1785/0120120021
Abrahamson N, Gregor N and Addo K (2016). “BC Hydro ground motion prediction equations for subduction earthquakes”. Earthquake Spectra, 32(1): 23–44. https://doi.org/10.1193/051712EQS188MR DOI: https://doi.org/10.1193/051712EQS188MR
Zhao JX, Zhang J, Asano A, Ohno Y, Oouchi T, Takahashi T, Ogawa H, Irikura K, Thio HK, Somerville PG, Fukushima Yasuhiro and Fukushima Yoshimitsu (2006). “Attenuation relations of strong ground motion in Japan using site classification based on predominant period”. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 96(3): 898–913. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120050122 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1785/0120050122
Johnson KL, Pagani M and Styron RH (2021). “PSHA of the southern Pacific Islands”. Geophysical Journal International, 224(3): 2149-2172. https://doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggaa530 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggaa530
Abrahamson NA and Silva WJ (2008). “Summary of the Abrahamson & Silva NGA ground-motion relations”. Earthquake Spectra, 24(2): 67-97. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.2924360 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1193/1.2924360
Pagani M, Monelli D, Weatherill G, Danciu L, Crowley H, Silva V, Henshaw P, Butler L, Nastasi M, Panzeri L, Simionato M and Vigano D (2014). “OpenQuake Engine: an open hazard (and risk) software for the Global Earthquake Model”. Seismological Research Letters, 85(3): 692–702. https://doi.org/10.1785/0220130087 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1785/0220130087
Gerstenberger M, et al. (2021). “The 2022 New Zealand National Seismic Hazard Model Revision”. Proceedings of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering Conference, Christchurch.
Abrahamson NA and Bommer JJ (2005). “Probability and uncertainty in seismic hazard analysis”. Earthquake Spectra, 21(2): 603-607. https://doi.org/10.1193%2F1.1899158 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1193/1.1899158